It is mostly believed by Christians that they died out in the flood some 5000 or so years ago....

great, there should be fossils aplenty then.

I doubt the stars part I reffered to was talking about what you claim very much, but it is convenient that whenever it doesnt make sense its a mistranslation. why would god allow these? allah doesnt, or at least, muslims believe the koran is divinely protected from alteration by man.

The entire rev section reads like an allegory, given the numbers of things, horns, heads, etc. Many scholars feel the numbers and described characters represented specific rulers and kingdoms, etc.

It has a dream-like quality to it...and, not surprisingly, leads to interpretations that would be analogous to telling what a dream might mean.

I think 1/3 stars in heaven are not 1/3 people, I think it's just also 1/3 people as well as referencing 1/3 of the stars...as 3 was a numerically important number, as were 7, 12, etc...based upon early numerology.

The fact is, back then, they DID think the stars were small, and close. When a "Falling star" was found on the ground, it WAS small, and, as they assumed the fallen star was actually a star, not knowing about meteorites, etc, so, there was evidence that supported their ancient misconception (It was not crazy at least to have made that mistake)

A god who made them all should have known what a meteorite was, etc, but, not a bronze age guy...he had not the tools yet, as science had not filled in the missing gaps in knowledge, DESPITE the entire apple eating imbroglio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shakenawake

great, there should be fossils aplenty then.

I doubt the stars part I reffered to was talking about what you claim very much, but it is convenient that whenever it doesnt make sense its a mistranslation. why would god allow these? allah doesnt, or at least, muslims believe the koran is divinely protected from alteration by man.

That's because they read it in the language of the prophet (Arabic), if Christians could read the original texts in ancient Hebrew and Greek or if they could at least learn to use a Strong's concordance and spend enough time studying then they would have a very different point of view on some things.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God, yet all three are very different, all three are also divided among themselves. Maybe you didn't understand about the war in heaven, the war started long ago but hasn't ended yet. Christians, Jews, and Muslims will continue to be more and more divided, it is part of the ongoing war, that is why I am nondenominational, denominations only exist to divide people.

I know some Christians will disagree with this but many don't, please give it some thought.

That's because they read it in the language of the prophet (Arabic), if Christians could read the original texts in ancient Hebrew and Greek or if they could at least learn to use a Strong's concordance and spend enough time studying then they would have a very different point of view on some things.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God, yet all three are very different, all three are also divided among themselves. Maybe you didn't understand about the war in heaven, the war started long ago but hasn't ended yet. Christians, Jews, and Muslims will continue to be more and more divided, it is part of the ongoing war, that is why I am nondenominational, denominations only exist to divide people.

I know some Christians will disagree with this but many don't, please give it some thought.

Alan

I think you're right about the language differences. That definitely added a layer of opportunity for mistakes, and many many mistakes were entirely due to mistranslation.

When later writer's attempted to make sense of the mistranslated earlier material, it lead to a game of post office.

This is how examples of a sect name became assumed to be a place name...which in turn could end up a place name again, named after the sects there, and so forth.

The above was magnified, as Aramaic was translated into either greek or latin, and then to either greek or latin.....and the same for the hebrew versions.

So its akin to writing a BOOK, and pasting it in an online translator, then copying the result, and pasting that result into the translator to get it in another language, a few times...and seeing what you ended up with.

In efforts to have the passages read better, make their points better, be more inspiring/meet the demands of those in power...writers ALSO edited the passages themselves.

So, an earlier version of a text might have an empty cave/tomb...a little later version, just a man there, and later versions with more and more people, thunder and shining raiments, etc...as each successive writer embellished the starting material.

Some mistranslations were purposeful, and lead to entire dogma. The hebrew for virgin, and for young woman, are not even close to the same...but, the original hebrew PROPHECY was for it to be a young woman...with her hymen left unmentioned.

The earliest scriptures in the new testament also said young woman. When earlier mythology the early christians were in competition with had virgin birth components, they had to change her to a virgin to meet the new criteria, and simply changed the word for young woman, to virgin.

This was actually voted on, and the records indicate that many church officials strongly objected to a virgin birth as a ludicrous throwback to ancient myths...but they were overruled.

So, she morphed into the virgin Mary, instead of just Mary.

Later votes even had her hymen REMAIN intact AFTER the birth too, and they edited out Jesus's brothers, etc, to avoid resultant complications.

That's in Vatican records, you can read it. It's not like I found out doing translations myself, the Church is essentially the only source.

There were various councils, and they voted on many many aspects of the religion, including whether Jesus was a man, or god, or a form of god, mom's virginity, etc.

They would review documents and decide upon their relevance, validity, etc. For example, they rejected several apostles accounts as obvious forgeries, discounted or verified accounts from various sources, and so forth.

I would suggest you ask him so cite the sources of his criticism, but from my own personal experience he will just ignore you.

__________________“Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."http://laserpointerforums.com/donations.htm“The end of life is not to be happy, nor to achieve pleasure and avoid pain, but to do the will of God, come what may.”—Martin Luther King

The Roman Catholic Church alleges that Mary’s parents presented her in the temple when she was but three years old, and that “the child herself mounted the Temple steps, and that she made her vow of virginity on this occasion” (Maas, 464F).This would suggest that at the tender age of three, Mary had considerable knowledge of human anatomy.It further hints that she understood the intricacies of ***ual union.Moreover it indicates that she likely foreknew the fact that she would bear the Christ child, and that she perceived somehow that it would be inappropriate for her ever to engage in honorable intimacy with a legitimate husband.

This theory of Mary’s “perpetual virginity” became official dogma at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, and thus is binding upon both the Greek and Roman segments of the Church (Pelikan, 14.1000).

A progressively deteriorating church (cf. 2 Thes. 2:1ff; 1 Tim. 4:1ff; 2 Tim. 4:1ff), therefore, was ever attempting to accommodate “Christianity” to paganism, in order to provide a “comfort zone” that would attract the heathen to the religion of Christ.This is an historical reality that not even Catholic scholars deny (see Attwater, 363).For an historical survey of this phenomenon, see Edward Gibbon’s famous work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Chapter XXVIII).Gibbon concludes this chapter with these words:

“The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity” (II.70).

OK, there's some decent references to the sources of these studies and conclusions. (Just perpetual virginity in this case)

Some of James, etc, versions of her early life were from these papyri sources:

Note: "Early" manuscripts are manuscripts from the fourth century or earlier. Roughly half of the papyri are "early". Some manuscripts contain content from more than one New Testament book, so the numbers above do not directly correspond to the total number of manuscripts.

If you compare the older versions, dating from a few hundred years AD or so, to the newer versions, subsequent to that, you see the progressive shift from a young woman, to virginity, then perpetual virginity....in 451 AD.

And in typical Teej fashion, when asked for sources he replies with the "laundry list tactic". We're all capable of dropping long lists of sources to support our beliefs, but notice that it's not an effective method for communicating a point in a discussion.

__________________“Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."http://laserpointerforums.com/donations.htm“The end of life is not to be happy, nor to achieve pleasure and avoid pain, but to do the will of God, come what may.”—Martin Luther King

Im confused.
Whats your problem? You just asked him for sources. He gave them to you and now you you whine ( as you usually do ) about the VAST quantity of sources that support is point.

Unless you've gone through all those sources, which I doubt you have, how would you know what they support. If you really ever got into this discussion and asked me for sources I would not to what Teej just did. To keep things focused and communication meaningful, you don't drop 100's of sources on someone.

__________________“Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."http://laserpointerforums.com/donations.htm“The end of life is not to be happy, nor to achieve pleasure and avoid pain, but to do the will of God, come what may.”—Martin Luther King

How do you eat an elephant?
You asked for SOURCES and got exactly what you asked for. If the quantity is overwhelming then just pick one.Let me google that for you

You are correct about my not going through all those sources. I have never taken any religious studies classes.

Any time you offer sources, they are either quotes from the bible, or from other peoples interpretations of the bible. I consider both to be the source supporting the source. "The bible says its true so therefore it has to be true." ( sorry. I don't know all the fancy terminology you guys love to use to describe argument styles. )

As for my entering the conversation, I admit that both you and Teej are far better suited for this debate.

I sure did didn't I, but not in a format that I can realistically use to see if any of Teej's points are valid.

Quote:

"The bible says its true so therefore it has to be true."

What would you require to consider the gospels true.

__________________“Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."http://laserpointerforums.com/donations.htm“The end of life is not to be happy, nor to achieve pleasure and avoid pain, but to do the will of God, come what may.”—Martin Luther King

And in typical Teej fashion, when asked for sources he replies with the "laundry list tactic". We're all capable of dropping long lists of sources to support our beliefs, but notice that it's not an effective method for communicating a point in a discussion.

LOL

The church supports my beliefs?

Look, I even highlighted (In bold...) one that was the most germane.

Its right at the top.

As THAT refers to other references, I ADDED those too, as much of what's discussed is simply referencing other sources, and, I wanted you to be able to see examples of where this stuff comes from.

In case you didn't notice, he didn't include a single link to any of those so called sources, are we supposed to google each one of them?

Alan

You want a link to a scrap of papyrus?

I gave the reference for the church's and biblical scholars (NOT atheist web sites, etc)

The scholars read and interpreted the papyrus, compare the various documents, compared them to other later documents, analyzed the patterns and findings, etc.

There's no one google link to all that...just linkS to all that, which you have.

If I had googled all of them, instead of reading books made of paper, etc. and book marked the links, yes, it would be easier.

I instead googled what I remembered to get what came up, which included some original sources..but not google links for THEM, etc.

I tell you what, if you make a statement, I accept supporting references to paper, papyrus, carvings on rocks, whatever...I don't demand to be spoon fed so I can just keep avoiding actually absorbing content.

I LIKE content.

When the content is in the document itself, so that its SELF verifying (In valid), sure, exterior references are quite welcome.

So are actual original thoughts...that were not copied from somewhere else, but are the presenter's. Its FORUM, so you SHOULD be able to tell me what YOU think...and why.

If the "why" is always faith, fine, I know where you're coming from, and, I accept it at face value as how you feel/what you believe.

If the "why" is based upon an article, a scientific finding, etc, sure, I would like to see it. If you don't have it handy, I don't assume you made it up, but, I might think its at least possible that the source was mistaken...or correct.

If the article, etc, mentioned, such as the jesus's house hoax, is known to me, I might go to a link if provided to be sure its the same one...especially if from the original dates.

If its from say , a recent version, its possible that by coincidence, additional work actually found what the earlier work lied about....making it now true (This can happen of course).

So, if its claimed that a nail was found and proven to have been in jesus on the cross, yeah...I might need a bit more proof than if its claimed that a nail was found, and so forth.

If I claim that the hebrew prophesy used the word for a young woman, and christian version also said young woman, and then virgin, and finally perpetual virgin...I have no problem with someone vested in that being false, questioning my word against the word of his church's sermons.

I'd EXPECT it.

So, I gave references for the entire process, in enough detail that you can go through the CHURCH'S records...and see what the CHURCH had on it.

They agree with me of course...as I got it all from them, so its really me just telling you what they said, not anything new I came up with on my own.

I spent many years at Princeton's library and seminary studies, because the process is FASCINATING...and I enjoyed learning about it.

If you compare the older versions, dating from a few hundred years AD or so, to the newer versions, subsequent to that, you see the progressive shift from a young woman, to virginity, then perpetual virginity....in 451 AD.

The theory of Mary’s “perpetual virginity” became official dogma at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, and thus is binding upon both the Greek and Roman segments of the Church (Pelikan, 14.1000).

OK, you want ONE citation...I took it from the post above, as it was already there...and made a special place for it, here, so you can find it easier, w/o being do overwhelmed by too much information.

I googled the author (Thank god I knew his first name too), so you can see the scholar of the one citation you asked for.

He had a lot of the source material, and if you follow him in conjunction to the other citations, you can see the references, from the church, regarding, for example (Picking one, again, to make it easy for you...), the Counsel of Chalcedon in 451 AD, which is WHEN they decided Mary's virginity was actually perpetual, and not just before Jesus's birth. (After a long period prior to the counsel, where they all had different opinions)